[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Bug#727708: Call for votes on init system resolution

Kurt Roeckx writes ("Re: Bug#727708: Call for votes on init system resolution"):
> On Thu, Feb 06, 2014 at 06:26:09PM +0000, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > If you agree with this reasoning then I'd be grateful if you'd advise
> > what form of words should be used to achieve the desired effect.  The
> > desired effect is that:
> > 
> >  * A GR option containing a non-binding position statement, requiring
> >    a 1:1 majority, can trigger:
> > 
> >  * Provisions in a TC resolution which is conditional on such a GR,
> > 
> >  * such that the TC declares in advance that the GR's views are to be
> >    substituted for the TC's.
> I guess it should mention that the option in the GR should be a
> position statement (and should not try to override the CTTE).

Yes.  What did you think of my proposal earlier ?  If you don't think
that has the right effect, please suggest something else.

> That assumes that the text is actually a position statement.  I'm
> not sure that I can interprete all texts as position statements.
> As always, I have to see the text first.

If the text explicitly says that it is a non-binding position
statement issued under s4.1.5 of the Constitution, would that suffice ?


Reply to: